Hebrews 11:35 refers to 2 Maccabees ch 7?

[CatholicKnight3]

Lets discuss a few things that are not being considered in this thread. First of all the books of the Deuterocanonicals were apart of the the official teaching when Christ walked the earth. The first time the books were taken out (I believe) was after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD by emperor Vespasian. From what I understand and what I was told was the Jewish leaders made this decision simply cause those books were written in Greek. This was in response to the destruction of the Temple. They felt they were being judged by God. They thought that was one big reason. (Could be wrong) Of course that seems simplistic. I cannot remember where I heard that. What is a fact is the Jewish leaders did decide to get rid of these books and they were the first ones.

By the time the Jewish leaders decided this, they no longer had the authority to make decisions like this. While Jesus walked the earth, these were official writings, and Jesus never uttered a word about these books.

The church in its first Council of Jerusalem, acting in authority, showed that the Church is the pillar of Truth and not the Mosaic Law. First Timothy 3:15 affirms this.

What does all of this mean? I do not know for sure. What I do know is The Temple was taken from the Jews two years after Nero died, who was the last emperor in the Caesar line. I say that to remind us that the Jews said, “We have no ling but Caesar,” when Pontius Pilate asked the Jews, " Is He not your king?" Ironic how the Temple remained until the last Caesar died.

Take what you want from that. I see the connection.

Does the same Church that has the authority to decide on doctrine have the power to loosen or bind? Doesn’t it?

Were we really suppose to decide for ourselves what the bible says to each of us individually? Is that true? If that was true, why didn’t Christ put a big emphasis on getting the written word to every Christian? Christians did not even have an official canon until at least the latter half of the 4th century. Christians did not read (2% of Christians if that) could read and write for 1500 years.

If it is sola scriptura, then we would need to acknowledge that the Church is the pillar of Truth. It says it. What did all Christians go by if they did not have a bible then? Yes, the Oral TRADITION as Paul says.

Even if you were sola scriptura then you would need to hold fast to the traditions as Paul says, since he does say that in scripture.

Anyway, the point is the authority has been given to the church. This has been decided upon. Aren’t arguments like this foolish things that divide and has been decided? Do we have the humility to accept it?

I know I struggle with humility. That is for sure.

 

[aspirant]

I was told was the Jewish leaders made this decision simply cause those books were written in Greek.

We have since learned that this reasoning (which was adopted by later thinkers if not first century Jews) was at least partially mistaken, though I would regard it as an understandable mistake. Hebrew versions of Sirach, for example, have been found in the Cairo Geniza, at Qumran, and at Masada. Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Tobit have also been found in Qumran.

By the time the Jewish leaders decided this, they no longer had the authority to make decisions like this.

FWIW, there is no scholarly consensus as to when and how the Jewish canon was set. Rabbinic debate over the Jewish canon appears to have continued into the second century AD, at least.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

We have since learned that this reasoning (which was adopted by later thinkers if not first century Jews) was at least partially mistaken, though I would regard it as an understandable mistake. Hebrew versions of Sirach, for example, have been found in the Cairo Geniza, at Qumran, and at Masada. Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Tobit have also been found in Qumran.

FWIW, there is no scholarly consensus as to when and how the Jewish canon was set. Rabbinic debate over the Jewish canon appears to have continued into the second century AD, at least.

My point about the Jewish authority changed when Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

In Mathew 23:1 for example, it Jesus says, “The Sadducees and Pharisees sit on the THRONE OF MOSES, therefore do all they all that they tell you.”

This suggests that they indeed had authority, recognized by heaven. Not even a suggestion. It was simply the way it was. Well, Christ gave this authority to HIS CHURCH. Which proved its true authority during the first Council of Jerusalem. It is essential because it showed that the Church is the pillar of Truth. The Church set doctrine and officially departed from the Mosaic Law.

The Jewish leaders disowned Christ when they said, “We have no king but Caesar.” It is historical fact that the Jewish leaders, in response the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD that they got rid of those particular books.

Again, the Jews at that time no longer had the authority that they had once had.

That is the significance of the fact that AFTER the last Caesar died in 68AD, that Vespasian ordered the utter destruction of the Temple in 70AD. There is providence in how that all played out and a fulfillment of Christs prophecy in regard to the Temple.

 

[aspirant]

My point about the Jewish authority changed when Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

Yes, and I’m pointing out that the Jewish canon was still being debated among Jewish rabbis in the 2nd century AD, well after Jesus established the Church. We don’t accept their judgment that Christianity is heretical, so there’s no good reason to accept their judgment regarding the canon of scripture, either.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Yes, and I’m pointing out that the Jewish canon was still being debated among Jewish rabbis in the 2nd century AD, well after Jesus established the Church. We don’t accept their judgment that Christianity is heretical, so there’s no good reason to accept their judgment regarding the canon of scripture, either.

Yes. I am trying to show how the debate about the 7 books of the Deuterocanonicals possibly came into question.

I believe that is where the ORIGINAL question about their validity.

There is no proof of this, but I suspect that early scholars and/or Saints (ie Saint Jerome) perhaps talked with Jewish Rabbis or scholars.

My thinking is there must be a link to the original debate about the 7 books. They did exist as part of the “canon” of the Jewish people for centuries and they were part of it when Christ walked the earth.

He made no reference to them as being false.

 

[aspirant]

St. Jerome regularly consulted with Palestinian rabbis, and it was probably through this dialogue that he became very attached to the Masoretic text.
St Jerome:

Why may not I then discuss about words, and in doing the work of a commentator teach the Latins what I learn from the Hebrews? …In reference to {my preface to} Daniel… I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof.

 

[MartinJordan]

St. Jerome regularly consulted with Palestinian rabbis, and it was probably through this dialogue that he became very attached to the Masoretic text.

Hey Aspirant. I found some stuff you might find interesting. A comment from St. Jerome as follows:

But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer;** for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book.** St. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, Book 2:33, 402 AD, Schaff, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, p. 517.

And

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? **And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) **Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58, (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

MJ

 

[aspirant]

Hey Aspirant. I found some stuff you might find interesting.

I’m aware of these texts. In fact, I quoted one of them (Against Rufinus) above!

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m aware of these texts. In fact, I quoted one of them (Against Rufinus) above!

Apologies! Please carry on.

MJ

 

[Pwrlftr]

As good a question as, if Carthage, Hippo, etc. set as doctrine the canon of scripture for the whole Church, why are there different canons in Orthodoxy?

The answer is that the issue of the OT canon wasn’t dogmatically settled until the Council of Trent.

You will find that at Trent the Tridentine fathers held a vote as to whether to include the dc’s or not and though the dc’s were included in the canon the vote was not unanimous. You have to assume the cardinals in attendance at Trent would have been aware of any other dogmatic decree and if there were one there would have been no vote necessary.

There is plenty of evidince between Jerome and Trent that there was confusion over the dc’s. I think you already brought up a few examples but another one would have been the Glossa Ordinaire that clearly placed the dc’s out of the inspired canon.

Also, as a side note, the Vulgate sent forth by the Church included Jerome’s prologues to the dc’s which placed the dc’s outside the pale of inspired scripture. If this issue was truely settled before Jerome why would the Church promulgate a version of the bible that contradicted what the Church taught?

None of this matters to me as a Catholic though since the issue was finally dogmatically and infallibly settled at Trent.

I apologize for a lack of reference material but I have a new laptop and almost all of my notes are gone. I will try to post some more information asap.

You can go to newadvent.org and read the section on the OT canon for yourself though and it will confirm what I said about Jerome and I think it also mentions the Gloss.

 

[aspirant]

The answer is that the issue of the OT canon wasn’t dogmatically settled until the Council of Trent.

Florence. Still post-schism, obvs.

There is plenty of evidince between Jerome and Trent that there was confusion over the dc’s.

No small amount of it caused by St. Jerome himself, bless him.

 

[JonNC]

The answer is that the issue of the OT canon wasn’t dogmatically settled until the Council of Trent.

You will find that at Trent the Tridentine fathers held a vote as to whether to include the dc’s or not and though the dc’s were included in the canon the vote was not unanimous. You have to assume the cardinals in attendance at Trent would have been aware of any other dogmatic decree and if there were one there would have been no vote necessary.

There is plenty of evidince between Jerome and Trent that there was confusion over the dc’s. I think you already brought up a few examples but another one would have been the Glossa Ordinaire that clearly placed the dc’s out of the inspired canon.

Also, as a side note, the Vulgate sent forth by the Church included Jerome’s prologues to the dc’s which placed the dc’s outside the pale of inspired scripture. If this issue was truely settled before Jerome why would the Church promulgate a version of the bible that contradicted what the Church taught?

None of this matters to me as a Catholic though since the issue was finally dogmatically and infallibly settled at Trent.

I apologize for a lack of reference material but I have a new laptop and almost all of my notes are gone. I will try to post some more information asap.

You can go to newadvent.org and read the section on the OT canon for yourself though and it will confirm what I said about Jerome and I think it also mentions the Gloss.

Thanks for this. Where it makes a difference for me is that it reflects the reason for
Lutheran approach to the dc’s being rather conservative: not rejecting them, but being cAutious about them, how we use them, etc.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

You are, in fact, trying to rest an absurdly large conclusion on this Cajetan quote, namely that “prior to Trent, Catholics had the liberty to dispute the D-C’s, as was evidenced by both St. Jerome early on, and Cardinal Cajetan in Luther’s time, and all those in between. This liberty applied to Luther, also.”

None of these claims is substantiated. We know that he was at the very least either ignorant of the prior Ecumenical Council or mistaken in believing that the Council must “be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” Since I believe it would be wrong to assume moral fault on Cajetan’s part without sufficient evidence, I would prefer to assume he was either ignorant or mistaken than that he put forward this error knowingly and willingly.

There was a group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on the issue of the canon. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “…[H]e was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent."

Jedin is worth quoting at length:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 281-282.